Is Nintendo holding the industry back?

[Sizzle Montyjing]

-snip-

To be fair...

OP: Not really, they don't impact the rest of the industry in a manner which would change other consoles negatively, although motion controls are debatable.

 

[NiPah]

to me it just seems that way because over the past few weeks there seems to be alot of anti Nintendo, and i hadnt expereinced that here until now, so im just curious why its happening recently

There is a lot of difference between hate and what you see here, hate is a sort of reverse fanboy mentality where instead of "Half Life 2 is the best thing ever" you get "Half Life 2 was shit, I don't see why anyone can say it's a good game". I use Half Life 2 a lot because it's an example brought up a lot as something loved by the Escapist, but instead has a large number of haters who constantly say they are the hated minority. The Nintendo is the exact same thing, bunch of people who have this odd hated minority complex when the reality of the matter is people just don't care.

Just look at this thread, the haters are awfully quiet when given the chance to bash Nintendo (most are just laughing at the Nintendo fanbase. Compare this thread to this one:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.827323-Why-I-might-not-buy-Half-life-3?page=1
Where the majority of posts are purely bashing the Half Life series.

So yeah, maybe back in the intellectual hay day of the Escapist when everyone could get around bashing Halo 3 without fear of descent, but nowadays the Escapist are either fans of Nintendo or wholly indifferent (with the odd poster who likes to poke the fanbase with a stick every time Yahtzee reviews a Nintendo product.

 

[WanderingFool]

I'm very much with Yahtzee regarding what he said in his E3 2010 episode:

Let me make my position clear: gaming should be about games, not about controllers. Controllers as they stand are a perfectly adequate conduit for connecting man to machine by way of thumbs.

Yahtzees position has always bugged me.

Firstly how a game is controlled is very much about the game. Try playing halo on a N64 controller or any PC RTS using anything other than a keyboard and mouse, it's not the same game.

Secondly "perfectly adequate" isn't exactly high praise. Yes controllers work, but it's becoming painfully obvious that the complexity modern games are trying to achieve is limited by the number of buttons on a controller which is why you end up with "Press A to do everything".

For the first comment, I dont think Yahtzee meant that you could play any game with any controller. Just that Just that you dont need all this "fancy motion control BS" to enjoy a game.

Second, I would say the problem is not the lack of buttons on the controller, but that excess of buttons reqiured. I mean, do we really need 6 different buttons to determine how high we want to crouch[footnote]This is in reference to System Shock 1, which when I tried, had a shit ton of bottons to do things that I would never use.[/footnote]? I think we can concieve of more complex gameplay without having to invent new buttons to use...

 

[Roxas1359]

all of Nintendo's controllers were risk cause it changes the gameplay drastically, N64 gamecube wii wiiU all the controllers are so different, i agree with region lock though i dont like it at all.

GameCube controller is still the best controller ever designed for gaming I think because it was both functional, and comfortable, which is why I was disappointed that they didn't remake it when making the Wii U Pro Controller and instead went with a more 360 controller design. Really the only bad thing about the GameCube controller was honestly the clicking, as it was just plain bad with the clicking for some reason.

I've actually been on a few Sony forums (back when I had a PSP), never a Microsoft forum. But, I guess you have a point.

Beware some of the Microsoft forums, they can be...very antagonistic to say the least, but then again it's been the same when being on a Sony forum or a Nintendo one. XD
But pretty much as wulf3n said, it's more because you've been around them longer that you're used to it really.

 

[Yuuki]

Yahtzees position has always bugged me.

Firstly how a game is controlled is very much about the game. Try playing halo on a N64 controller or any PC RTS using anything other than a keyboard and mouse, it's not the same game.

1) Hence Halo (or similar) was never released on an N64. Each major revamp in controls was driven by a huge core necessity...the need for dual analog sticks (or d-pad + analog stick) became obvious once console games went full 3D with player-controlled cameras (PC users already had mouse camera). Bam, console controller revolution.
2) What Yahtzee was hinting at was that our traditional control inputs work just fine for all the games we have today. RTS games evolved on PC around keyboard+mouse controls, they suck on consoles because of Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo's constant refusal at allowing mouse+keyboard as native inputs (no modded adapters). That's their choice, not a technological limitation.

The genuine NEED for motion controls to become a "primary" control method isn't there whatsover. Putting that aside, Yahtzee explained all the other reasons in his Kinect review:

Secondly "perfectly adequate" isn't exactly high praise. Yes controllers work, but it's becoming painfully obvious that the complexity modern games are trying to achieve is limited by the number of buttons on a controller which is why you end up with "Press A to do everything".

When you say "becoming painfully obvious", please tell me a few examples of games that are too complex for a regular controller or mouse+keyboard (keep in mind the aforementioned mouse+keyboard-on-consoles point). Modern games are getting LESS complex if anything, a typical PC game from 10 years ago would make people break their fingers trying to figure all the keybinds. Something like Dark Souls, Super Street Fighter IV, etc on console is still nightmarishly complicated if you want to become good at it, linear first person shooters aren't the only kinds of games on consoles lol.

Would you rather press A to do some things, B to do some other things, Y to do the rest of the things? Does it really matter as long as the goal is to accomplish an action with a button-push?

For highly specific games that do require special controls and are built around it, we have stuff like this:

Releasing the controller bundles with the game has worked perfectly fine for the industry, as seen by Guitar Hero's wild success.

 

[Dragonbums]

-snip-

You know what I meant about "we" I'm talking about the Escapist in general.

And quite frankly it's people like those behind the Oculus Rift and Nintendo that are pushing gaming forward. There is nothing more dangerous than having people be content with the average controller and anything beyond that is a "stupid gimmick' if nobody is trying things out, then there is no possibility to find new avenues to explore gaming. While you may not care about Oculus Rift and Motion controls, they have still provided a base that can be very beneficial to the gaming industry years down the line when the public is more ready for it.

As for E3, Nintendo can't do a cash grab with a literal controller, because their cash grab was the motion controls. Anything added on at that point is simply a considerate alternative for players who don't like using motion controls. Nintendo won the last console race. They don't need to cash grab on anything.

 

[WanderingFool]

When you say "becoming painfully obvious", please tell me a few examples of games that don't involve the aforementioned mouse+keyboard-on-consoles thing.

For highly specific games that do require special controls and are built around it, we have stuff like this:

Releasing the controller bundles with the game has worked perfectly fine for the industry, as seen by Guitar Hero's wild success.

Until Activision killed the Golden Goose...

 

[Roxas1359]

Until Activision killed the Golden Goose...

Just like any series really. When you think about it, Activision will drop a franchise the moment it stops selling. Case and point, the Guitar Hero franchise, and before that the Tony Hawk franchise which many people seem to have forgotten. XD

 

[Dragonbums]

If all three should be ashamed of motion controls, then why are we praising the Oculus Rift?

FYI, The Oculus Rift is a display not a motion control, although it allows camera movement by moving your head (which is natural, not like holding a wii mote and pointing at the side of the screen).

Motions Controls are not mandatory for use of the Oculus Rift either.

I think the reason we praise the Rift and badmouth the Wiimote, Move, and Kinect, is because they are not utilized in a fashion that actually creates the feeling of "being in the game." The Oculus Rift has that potential, and I have no doubt that Oculus Rift gaming will be much more compelling than anything played solely with "Motion Controls."

When done right, motion controls will be great. Im guessing it is going to take the "STEM" and the Oculus Rift for motion controls to really be compelling, and for people to stick with wanting to use them.

Moving your head is natural the same way that moving your arms around are natural.

You move your head around to get a view of things. You can't do that when the most important sensory to the outside (your eyes and ears.) are being blocked by giant wrap around binoculars and video game music. And not everyone is well versed in the way of the keyboard and controller. How are they going to look down and make that everything is all right? That is just as unnatural as your analogy that the Wii motion controls make you point at the screen.

I'm confused at your sentiment that the Oculus Rift isn't focused on "being in the game" isn't that literally the whole point in basically having your vision completely surrounded by the game? To be literally in the game with 360 vision?

Also the motion controls on the Wii had the potential to be compelling if anyone but Nintendo didn't lazy up on it and only do "waggle" physics.
Skyward Sword on the Wii was the perfection of motion controls. Especially if you had the Wiimote plus that greatly enhanced a few of the cracks in the motion controls.
When I lifted my arms up the link on screen was pretty spot on on the general angle of the wii mote.
They pretty much nailed it in the Nintendo Land minigame for the Wii U.

 

[Yuuki]

And quite frankly it's people like those behind the Oculus Rift and Nintendo that are pushing gaming forward. There is nothing more dangerous than having people be content with the average controller and anything beyond that is a "stupid gimmick' if nobody is trying things out, then there is no possibility to find new avenues to explore gaming. While you may not care about Oculus Rift and Motion controls, they have still provided a base that can be very beneficial to the gaming industry years down the line when the public is more ready for it.

Oh I'm sure the need for something new will eventually come down the road, that's how we progress. But necessity is still the mother of all invention as far as mainstream game controls go (i.e. not niche/gimmicky), this is simply a fact you have to understand.
Sony/Microsoft aren't idiots to stick to traditional controllers (with minor improvements) for the next console generation that is expected to last till at least 2020...yes, 2020! Constant advances are being made in controller tech and mouse/keyboard tech, but ultimately they are sticking to a fundamental concept that WORKS. It's the same reason that car manufacturers aren't idiots for sticking to cars with circular wheels (with minor improvements of course ), the NEED for cars which move on anything other than circular wheels isn't there yet. Are you going to label it as "it's dangerous to be content with circular wheels"?

Explore new technologies to your hearts' content, but be prepared to be met with harsh criticism if it doesn't succeed OR if the need for it isn't there. Motion controls have already been locked away in storage with a "do not open till freaking needed" sticker on the crate. It's commendable that Microsoft are continuing with Kinect (albeit under the clever guise of a TV remote) it gives developers a reason to build games around Kinect. We'll see where it gets...I'm personally not interested in using it, but I'd still love to see how it goes as far as core gamers are concerned. I have my reasons to believe it will remain a niche/casual thing due to reasons mentioned by Yahtzee.

Also see my post above yours.

 

[Something Amyss]

So the touchscreen and motion capabilities weren't pioneered by Nintendo?

Define "pioneered." I mean, they were the ones who made motion controls popular, and touchscreens with the specific field of gaming, but they weren't really "pioneers" in any meaningful sense. Sega was probably the pioneer for both. Nintendo usually takes someone else's idea and markets it better, like Apple. Also like Apple, it's utterly hilarious to see the whole camera deal being called a Nintendo ripoff since Sony made the first Eyetoy first. Kind of like Microsoft's avatars which by all appearance were based on earlier Microsoft deals, but were a total ripoff of Miis because ponies Microsoft apparently had scrolls in cuneiform demonstrating they first invented the idea thousands of years ago or something.

I'm surprised they or their fans haven't claimed they invented the internet, but I'm sure in a gen or two people will say that.

That makes sense. I remember it was either the 2DS thread or something similar, but a few users were goading him by stating they there is a good chance many users on the Escapist do these anti-Nintendo threads just so they can piss him off.

What's the excuse for the rest of the internet?

 

[a ginger491]

As basically everyone has already said, Nintendo isn't holding the industry back so much as it is doing their own thing and cornering their own markets. The console market isn't the one that really blazes trails from a technological standpoint anyway. From what I can tell the pc market is always pushing technological boundaries both in hardware and software.

 

[wulf3n]

For the first comment, I dont think Yahtzee meant that you could play any game with any controller. Just that Just that you dont need all this "fancy motion control BS" to enjoy a game.

My issue with the statement is that it separates the controller from games, implying they're separate concerns.

Second, I would say the problem is not the lack of buttons on the controller, but that excess of buttons reqiured. I mean, do we really need 6 different buttons to determine how high we want to crouch[footnote]This is in reference to System Shock 1, which when I tried, had a shit ton of bottons to do things that I would never use.[/footnote]?

I think we can concieve of more complex gameplay without having to invent new buttons to use...

Perhaps but this then is a case of the developer working around the limitations of the controller.

1) Hence Halo (or similar) was never released on an N64. Each major revamp in controls was driven by a huge core necessity...the need for dual analog sticks (or d-pad + analog stick) became obvious once console games went full 3D with player-controlled cameras (PC users already had mouse camera). Bam, console controller revolution.

The necessity here is evident by the influx of quick time events and context sensitivity. Though the solution isn't as simple as add more buttons or a new analogue stick. Or even motion control for that matter.

2) What Yahtzee was hinting at was that our traditional control inputs work just fine for all the games we have today. RTS games evolved on PC around keyboard+mouse controls, they suck on consoles because of Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo's constant refusal at allowing mouse+keyboard as native inputs (no modded adapters). That's their choice, not a technological limitation.

Adequate but not optimal.

The genuine NEED for motion controls to become a "primary" control method isn't there whatsover. Putting that aside, Yahtzee explained all the other reasons in his Kinect review:

Motion controls were just the first attempt at solving the issue of games wanting to be able to do more things.

When you say "becoming painfully obvious", please tell me a few examples of games that are too complex for a regular controller or mouse+keyboard (keep in mind the aforementioned mouse+keyboard-on-consoles point). Modern games are getting LESS complex if anything, a typical PC game from 10 years ago would make people break their fingers trying to figure all the keybinds. Something like Dark Souls, Super Street Fighter IV, etc on console is still nightmarishly complicated if you want to become good at it, linear first person shooters aren't the only kinds of games on consoles lol.

You have to look at the console and pc's seperately as they evolved along different paths. The level of control given to players in console games has only gotten more complex shown by the increased complexity in modern controllers. PC's have gotten less complex, though I can only speculate to the reason.

edit: as for which games show the need for a new control methods anything [http://www.giantbomb.com/quick-time-event/3015-6/games/] that has quick time events really.

Would you rather press A to do some things, B to do some other things, Y to do the rest of the things? Does it really matter as long as the goal is to accomplish an action with a button-push?

I would actually

If we keep going with that argument why don't we just have a controller with a single button that does everything move, jump, attack, interact?

For highly specific games that do require special controls and are built around it, we have stuff like this:

Releasing the controller bundles with the game has worked perfectly fine for the industry, as seen by Guitar Hero's wild success.

again perfectly fine but not optimal, it could be improved, which is what I believe Nintendo were trying to do.

 

[Roxas1359]

snip

Obviously none of the companies have claimed to have invented the internet because obviously Al Gore invented it! XD
...I wonder how many people will actually get that old joke...>.>
...I'll let myself out.

 

[xPixelatedx]

I would argue the industry is holding Nintendo back, since this is no longer an industry about video games, and Nintendo is just a game company. Anything they add (like a giant tablet-eqse touch pad) is a superfluous addition due to pressure by an industry constantly stating videogames and gampads aren't enough.

Nintendo is behind the times? Well sorry to burst your bubble there champ, but the times are pretty shitty. I wouldn't have bought a wiiU if it was a cablebox/camera or a socialhub/facebook box. I play video games to get the hell away from that shit. If Nintendo followed trends, I would have gladly become a PC gamer by now.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

Oh boy, another Escapist anti-Nintendo topic. Otherwise known as "The only thing that comes close to feminism in topic quality and quantity on the Escapist."

No, they aren't. If anything holds the industry back, it's gamers. Gamers are always the ones who claim "I don't care about graphics" shortly before panning something that is in MEGA HD!!!1! Gamers are always the ones who claim "I wish the industry would take more chances" before passing up original games for the latest sequel in Played-Out Franchise 16: Now with more DLC.

And gamers were the ones who incessantly whined about how "everyone else" doesn't get gaming but, when Nintendo took a page from Sony's PS1 book and made games that were fun for people who didn't need to see blood and/or boobs every other minute, they started making whiny topics about Nintendo bringing in casuals or holding back the industry.

 

[a ginger491]

No, extortionate development costs as a result of a narrowing demand by a jaded audience with no loyalty to a brand or the scene who are actively involved in the trade-in industry are what's holding the games industry back.

Also, I object to the idea that Nintendo produce "casual" games. Actual casual gamers play FPS.

I always thought keeping an open mind to all products and showing no loyalty to any corporation or brand is what pushes any market forward. It creates competition and is better for everyone! especially the consumer. And also if gamestop (I assume this is who you mean when you say trade in market) was so terrible for the market, publishers wouldn't give pre-order incentives for specifically buying from gamestop.

Lastly You should never ever take a massive group of people and then slap a malicious label on them, although the phrase "casual gamer" isn't so much malicious as it is elitist and frankly stupid. I do believe that games developed with a focus tested check list at its heart to "apeal to a wider audience" are a bad thing but the mere existence of people who play games to pass time similarly to how one would watch a movie or play a game of chess is not inherently bad.

 

[Yuuki]

The necessity here is evident by the influx of quick time events and context sensitivity. Though the solution isn't as simple as add more buttons or a new analogue stick. Or even motion control for that matter.

You do realize QTE's are considered a negative thing right? I could probably count on one hand the number of times where QTE's have actually improved a game. Tons and tons of examples of excellent games with zero/minimal QTE's. And they work just fine with a button press, they are supposed to be "quick".

Adequate but not optimal.

Err yes...I said that's their choice. And if you're referring mouse+kb not being "optimal" for RTS, I have no idea what other control scheme could possibly be better. It's beyond my brain's capacity.

Motion controls were just the first attempt at solving the issue of games wanting to be able to do more things.

That's a tad misleading, assuming that Nintendo was the one who spurred motion controls to begin with, their goal was far from "solving an issue". Nintendo's primary goal with the Wii was to appeal to a demographic that was scared-away from the idea of controllers with buttons, people who associate controller-users with obese basement-dwelling mouth-breathing nerds, i.e. parents, grandparents, very small children, generally folk who have zero interest in mainstream gaming. That demographic turned out to be pretty huge.
Before anyone starts yelling at me with "hey I'M a proper gamer and I loved the Wii!", that's fine n' dandy, but Nintendo already had a Zelda/Mario fanbase willing to buy ANY game from that franchise (regardless of controls/platform) so that's really not saying much. I'll admit even I had a bit of fun with Wii Sports Resort, it was a fun way to blow-off 30 minutes when guests came to visit for some whole-hearted family fun (yaaaay). Other than that, it gathered dust. Sold it off fairly quickly.

You have to look at the console and pc's seperately as they evolved along different paths. The level of control given to players in console games has only gotten more complex shown by the increased complexity in modern controllers.

Dualshock 3 (2007) is almost identical to the original Dualshock (1997) at first glance, there have been minor improvements. Exactly about console controllers has become more complex over the last 10-15 years of 3D games?

PC's have gotten less complex, though I can only speculate to the reason.

Ha, no need to speculate at all, the primary reason is obvious: Console ports. Console ports everywhere.

If we keep going with that argument why don't we just have a controller with a single button that does everything move, jump, attack, interact?

No offense but that's...a really, really dumb analogy. What if you want to jump over an enemy instead of attacking it? How will the game know? Also movement has at least 8 different directions, 10 if you want to go vertical. How can you combine movement with jump/attack? How are you going to tie interaction into all that? How will you rotate/swivel the camera if it's all tied to movement/jumping/attacking/interacting?
Are...are you even familiar with how game controls work and WHY we have different buttons to do different things??? I can't possibly explain all that.

again perfectly fine but not optimal, it could be improved, which is what I believe Nintendo were trying to do.

Guitar Hero controller wasn't optimal for Guitar Hero? What?

 

[wulf3n]

You do realize QTE's are considered a negative thing right? I could probably count on one hand the number of times where QTE's have actually improved a game. Tons and tons of examples of excellent games with zero/minimal QTE's. And they work just fine with a button press, they are supposed to be "quick".

Yes which is why I said they were a sign of limitations in current control methods. While not the only reason for Quick Time events mind you.

Err yes...I said that's their choice. And if you're referring mouse+kb not being "optimal" for RTS, I have no idea what other control scheme could possibly be better. It's beyond my brain's capacity.

Your missing the point. Just because something works does not mean it can't be improved.

That's a tad misleading, assuming that Nintendo was the one who spurred motion controls to begin with, their goal was far from "solving an issue". Nintendo's primary goal with the Wii was to appeal to a demographic that was scared-away from the idea of controllers with buttons, people who associate controller-users with obese basement-dwelling mouth-breathing nerds, i.e. parents, grandparents, very small children, generally folk who have zero interest in mainstream gaming. That demographic turned out to be pretty huge.

So there issue with controllers was barrier to entry, I'm not seeing your point.

Ha, no need to speculate at all, the primary reason is obvious: Console ports. Console ports everywhere.

I agree, it's just not something I can backup if someone challenges.

No offense but that's...a really, really dumb analogy. What if you want to jump over an enemy instead of attacking it? How will the game know? Also movement has at least 8 different directions, 10 if you want to go vertical. How can you combine movement with jump/attack? How are you going to tie interaction into all that? How will you rotate/swivel the camera if it's all tied to movement/jumping/attacking/interacting?
Are...are you even familiar with how game controls work and WHY we have different buttons to do different things??? I can't possibly explain all that.

The point was exaggerated I'll admit, but it was trying to show my rationale. The controller to me is a way of becoming the character, the more actions that are bundled to a single context sensitive button the less control I feel I have.

edit: It may seem trivial to most but having the button that opens a door be the same as the one that picks up the ammo, which is the same as the one that makes me climb a ledge is a limitation to me.

Guitar Hero controller wasn't optimal for Guitar Hero? What?

Not the guitar hero controller, the concept of needing game specific peripherals. It works, but it'd be nice not to have an entire fake recording studio in my living room just to play rock band.

edit: For some reason this went missing in my post.

Dualshock 3 (2007) is almost identical to the original Dualshock (1997) at first glance, there have been minor improvements. Exactly about console controllers has become more complex over the last 10-15 years of 3D games?

So one company hasn't changed their controller, that doesn't mean controller technology hasn't changed. You only have to look at Nintendos history, or Sega, Or Microsoft. Though Microsoft has been more about ergonomics than control.